Case Reopened: Killing Father of India

[head coach]

"It's been 1,400 years, but we've kept the faith, and now it is going to happen," he said. "Finally, we will have our Hindu Rashtra." Godse, the last surviving member of the group that plotted the Gandhi killing, described the ascent of the Hindu party as a critical step toward achievement of the "Hindu Rashtra," or Hindu nation -- a nationalist concept that hearkens back to ancient Hindu kingdoms that ruled before the first Muslim invaders arrived. Godse said he fled the scene and returned by train to Pune, meeting up again in Bombay a few days later with his brother, who told him that he was returning to New Delhi to carry out the assassination alone. Gopal Godse returned to his duties as an army storekeeper and said he had heard nothing more until the radio announcement of the assassination. Pausing for for a sip of sugary tea, Godse added: "So you see, it is not as if we had gone to New Delhi to steal Gandhi's watch -- that would have been a sinful, dirty thing. But that was not the case. We killed with a motive, to serve the highest interests of our people."

[head coach]

Hindu nationalists hated Gandhi's inclusiveness and believed that as the majority community, Hindus should dominate. Accepting colonial categories, they too regarded Muslims as militant, intolerant, and violent, and feared that Gandhi's "effeminacy" would bring about the further emasculation of Hindu men.

[head coach]

Nathuram Godse, the murderer’s act has been glorified by saying that he did it from a sense of outrage at Gandhi’s pro-Pakistani stance to the detriment of Hindus. ‘Mahatma Gandhi was responsible for Partition’; ‘Mahatma Gandhi was sheltering Muslims and had abandoned Hindus’; ‘If Mahatma Gandhi was allowed to live he would harm the cause of the Hindu Rashtra’, ‘Mahatma Gandhi forced the Indian Government to pay Pakistan Rs. 55 crores’; ‘Mahatma Gandhi turned a blind eye to the sufferings of the Hindu refugees and pampered the Muslims who had stayed back at the time of the Partition’; Killing Gandhiji was the only way to save Bharatmata’; these were, and even today are, some of the lies propagated by the followers of Godse and the Hindu far-Right to justify his murder. A generation of Indians has grown up believing them to be true. The silence of the Gandhians, who always turned the other cheek whenever Gandhi was attacked, has strengthened this belief further. Does anyone know that there were four recorded attempts on Gandhi’s life before the last two on the 20th and 30 of January 1948? Four of the five failed attempts were made at a time when Pakistan was not even on the agenda of the Muslim League. All the four attacks were made by the extreme Right-wing upper caste Hindus of Poona; three of the four attempts on his life were made y the Narayan Apte-Godse Gang, and Nathuram was caught in two of those attempts. On 20 January a crude bomb was exploded by a Punjabi refugee, Madanlal Pahwa, during the evening prayer meeting at Birla House. After he was arrested, Madanlal confessed to being a part of a gang conspiring to kill Gandhi. He confessed that the leaders of the gang were from Poona and that one of them was the editor and publisher of Hindu Rashtra and Agranee, Marathi language periodicals published and printed by Godse and Apte. Madanlal led the police to room 40, at Marina Hotel, in Delhi, where the gang leaders had stayed before the failed attempt on the 20th. The police found unclaimed laundry from the room, which bore the initials N. V. G., Nathuram Vinayak Godse. They also found a copy of the then-not-yet released press statement of the secretary of the Delhi Hindu Mahasabha.

[Guest dada_rocks]

U are yet to answer questions in the relevant thread on this topic and why RSS and others keep getting hacked by commnais in kerala nd WB.. what's the point of opening new threads.

[Guest HariSampath]

HC.....I can give u more specific info on the Mahatma's sad assassination, but can you address at least one point of Nathuram ?

[Guest HariSampath]

^...Let me add what you hve not.....Gopal Godse and Madanlal Phawa were released on the specific instructions of The Mahatma after the Jan 20 attempt....moreover the Sarvodhaya/Gandhi movement was the only ones to apply for mercy petition for Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte , under the view that Bapu himself would have wanted that...but they were executed. It is recorded by the hanging committee that Nathuram died intstantly while Narayan Apte struggled for 2 min before dying, something that others had cited as evidence that Apte had been the wicked man who directed the show

[head coach]

HC.....I can give u more specific info on the Mahatma's sad assassination' date=' but [b']can you address at least one point of Nathuram ?

Those were his fears. Gandhi had no part in all that he feared. The hatred and bigotry that was injected into this guy through Hindu Mahasabha ended in the assassination of a great leader whom the World has rarely seen.

[head coach]

U are yet to answer questions in the relevant thread on this topic and why RSS and others keep getting hacked by commnais in kerala nd WB.. what's the point of opening new threads.

Can you get a life without thinking about these so called Communazi business. I have more authority to talk about RSS- CPI(M) conflict because I have been victim of these fights several times. Both are two sides of the same coin as far as common citizen is concerned just creating havoc in our lives with harthals and quarrels. You might consider RSS in high esteem because of your association but I dont have one with either of these and I see both as same.

[Guest HariSampath]

^...Not a shadow of doubt that Bapu was perhaps one of the greatest ever human beings to set foot on this earth . Eintein had said "generations to come will find it difficult to believe such a man walked the Earth"...but does it mean Bapu was always right and everyone always had to follow him or else....he fasts to death....isnt this blackmail ?

[head coach]

^...Not a shadow of doubt that Bapu was perhaps one of the greatest ever human beings to set foot on this earth . Eintein had said "generations to come will find it difficult to believe such a man walked the Earth"...but does it mean Bapu was always right and everyone always had to follow him or else....he fasts to death....isnt this blackmail ?

Hari, I didnt say Bapu was perfect. No man in this World is perfect. He did have his own mistakes but I dont see how those could translate into his assassination. Personally i think he was a bigger hindu in his heart than many other so called leaders. Just take the menace of caste system in Hindu religion and how he dealt with Untouchables.

[Guest HariSampath]

^...absolutely, but can you answer 2 questions that bapu himself was unable to answer in accordance with his principles. Bapu, can your non violence work against Adolf Hitler ? Bapu what should a woman do , if she is raped and assaulted ? passively resist ? Bapu's answers were . 1. No, Hitler's kind of policies would involve using force, but I find that a sad state of affairs. 2. An woman in that situation should use every weapon at her disposal to defend herself, including her nails. Isnt this what , in some ways what nathuram was also saying ?

[Guest HariSampath]

^...plus of course the historical fact that Bapu supported the world war, and in fact suspended the freedom movement at that time.

[head coach]

^...plus of course the historical fact that Bapu supported the world war' date=' and in fact suspended the freedom movement at that time.[/quote'] Hari, thanks for your time. I will answer these but I have to go out of town. I will take these up when I return(that'll) be on Monday.

[head coach]

^...absolutely, but can you answer 2 questions that bapu himself was unable to answer in accordance with his principles. Bapu, can your non violence work against Adolf Hitler ? Bapu what should a woman do , if she is raped and assaulted ? passively resist ? Bapu's answers were . 1. No, Hitler's kind of policies would involve using force, but I find that a sad state of affairs. 2. An woman in that situation should use every weapon at her disposal to defend herself, including her nails. Isnt this what , in some ways what nathuram was also saying ?

Alright Hari I'm getting net access from this location so here you go: Mahatma Gandhi's admirers are not in the habit of confronting embarrassing facts about their favourite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi's silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany's dictator of the value of non-violence. Gandhi was (1) entirely Gandhian, and (2) essentially right. He did support the fight against Nazism but envisioned it as a non-violent struggle aimed at convincing rather than destroying. For your reference Hari this is what Gandhi said when asked about Hitler and I quote: "The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils. I warn you however, that the victory will not come easy- just like it will not come easy with violent methods such as fighting with weaponry." I hope it is clear now that he did follow the same principle with Hitler.

[head coach]

FWIW ... Godse's Statement to the court on why he killed MG --- nathu ram's statement in court Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done. All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well. Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, hunour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [in the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [in the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action. In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them. The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus. From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger. One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

Man, The guy just killed a great human being. His motives were his own fears. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration

[Guest HariSampath]

"The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils. I warn you however, that the victory will not come easy- just like it will not come easy with violent methods such as fighting with weaponry." This exactly is the reason why his fast unto death moves worked wonders with the Hindu masses, and had little or no effect on Muslims , Hindus knew at heart this was a saint and who had to be followed and that he had the moral authority. This knowledge of God by Hindus is what made bapu use that weapon very effectively....and in the case of Sathyagraha, he used that very christian idea of non violent passive resistance very very effectively because that was central to their religion...it just would never work with muslims and that is why he never did it even once to stop the Pakistan Govt or riots in Pakistan against Hindus as Godse was correctly pointing out. But of course Mahatma Gandhi was a total idealist and a saint and expected muslims to just see reason and stop if Hindus did it unconditionally first, that was the problem, expecting normal people to behave as saints, as he himself. It was a major mistake of Bapu , historically debated by scholars, but the principle cannot be questioned at all.

[Lurker]

This exactly is the reason why his fast unto death moves worked wonders with the Hindu masses, and had little or no effect on Muslims , Hindus knew at heart this was a saint and who had to be followed and that he had the moral authority. This knowledge of God by Hindus is what made bapu use that weapon very effectively....and in the case of Sathyagraha, he used that very christian idea of non violent passive resistance very very effectively because that was central to their religion...it just would never work with muslims and that is why he never did it even once to stop the Pakistan Govt or riots in Pakistan against Hindus as Godse was correctly pointing out.

What a truckload of cr@p. It shows clearly why you have only one version of life/religion and indeed Indian freedom struggle. Do yourself a favour and read on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as Frontier Gandhi. If you are already aware of him then tell me why the most blood thirsty of Pathans, arguably the most violent Muslims in the world, took to ahmisa and satyagraha. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

Alright Hari I'm getting net access from this location so here you go: Mahatma Gandhi's admirers are not in the habit of confronting embarrassing facts about their favourite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi's silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany's dictator of the value of non-violence. Gandhi was (1) entirely Gandhian, and (2) essentially right. He did support the fight against Nazism but envisioned it as a non-violent struggle aimed at convincing rather than destroying. For your reference Hari this is what Gandhi said when asked about Hitler and I quote: "The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils. I warn you however, that the victory will not come easy- just like it will not come easy with violent methods such as fighting with weaponry." I hope it is clear now that he did follow the same principle with Hitler.

Bapu had some confusions about the issue of Ahimsa in course of his spiritual journey. Genuine too, considering he was a totally genuinely intending honest spiritual seeker. I had spoken on this subject from many public stages, and this is what I essentially used to say from an extract of one of my speeches..." The Mahatma did have the same illusion and identification with body as Arjuna did in The Gita. Himsa or Ahimsa is defined by the cruelty of intent and not of application. If an enemy of Dharma is fighting you with weapons, it is your sacred duty to defend in kind, and you would not be practising Himsa, if you do it with proper understanding of duty , it becomes karma yoga. Bapu was so opposed to the idea of inflicting physical harm, he took upon suffering it himself, which is just the reverse of the same thing. Of course there is no way he was wrong in thought, but wrong in just applying faultily his correct thought. A personal viewoint of mine ,which strengthened by my great grand uncle Sri Vijayarghavachari-ji who was president of INC when Bapu joined it, is that Bapu probably tought that the British had not really committed Adharma by occypying India. Bapu was always very friendly with western thought and he had at times expressed opinions in South Africa as well as in India during his struggle against British that he was not against their rule, but just that it had outgrown its use or the administration did not reflect local conditions. This is an astonishing possibility that merits scholarly research by philosophers and sociologists. The fact that Mahatma Gandhi may not have been convinced entirely of the British occupation as "wrong" or "unjust", but just a fact of life that had outlasted its purpose in destiny. Mahatma gandhi believed that the British had done lots of good for India by uniting a vast number of princely states, giving infrsatructure and mechanisms etc for education and the upliftment of rural masses etc which were dear to his heart. There is even speculation that he may have indeed foreseen the utility of having British administration till middle part of 20th century for the faster growth of India, and hence he had almost engaged in a "gentle friendly" struggle telling the British, ok, enough, now we will rule ourselves......"

[Lurker]

"It's been 1' date='400 years, but we've kept the faith, and now it is going to happen," he said. "Finally, we will have our Hindu Rashtra." Godse, the last surviving member of the group that plotted the Gandhi killing, described the ascent of the Hindu party as a critical step toward achievement of the "Hindu Rashtra," or Hindu nation -- a nationalist concept that hearkens back to ancient Hindu kingdoms that ruled before the first Muslim invaders arrived. Godse said he fled the scene and returned by train to Pune, meeting up again in Bombay a few days later with his brother, who told him that he was returning to New Delhi to carry out the assassination alone. Gopal Godse returned to his duties as an army storekeeper and said he had heard nothing more until the radio announcement of the assassination. Pausing for for a sip of sugary tea, Godse added: "So you see, it is not as if we had gone to New Delhi to steal Gandhi's watch -- that would have been a sinful, dirty thing. [b']But that was not the case. We killed with a motive, to serve the highest interests of our people."

That being the case I am sure RSS people will completely understand if one of these days a Muslim who has lost his family in Gujarat riot shoots Narendra Modi dead publicly. On the topic of Nathuram Godse why is this effer getting a thread in himself? The man shot the ONLY Indian freedom fighter who stood his ground when the whole country was in flame(1947). How many Indian freedom herors - from Nehru to Rajendra Prasad, Jinnah to Suhrawardi - stood their ground and fought(non-violently at that!) to bring down thr riots in the country? And which other Hindu leader did Muslims listen to at this time? Gandhi was the greatest son of India of 19th/20th century and I have no remote respect for a effer who had the galls to shoot an elderly 70ish unarmed greatest son of India. xxx

[Guest HariSampath]

What a truckload of cr@p. It shows clearly why you have only one version of life/religion and indeed Indian freedom struggle. Do yourself a favour and read on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, popularly known as Frontier Gandhi. If you are already aware of him then tell me why the most blood thirsty of Pathans, arguably the most violent Muslims in the world, took to ahmisa and satyagraha. xxx

That exactly is what I emphasized. The blood thirsty pathans were converted to the Gandhian way which was essentially a "Hindu" thought. Non violence is a nuclear aspect of Indian/Hindu thought and these people including Khan were more or less converted to our thought. But this doesnt change the fact that muslims historically had been using force and violence for their goals and ends. Only for the cause of freedom they were united under Mahatma Gandhi ( largely due to Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) , but when it came to Hindu muslim violence, Gandhi could not convince them in pakistan to stop violence or even in the cause of partition based on a theocratic state. The roots lie in certain behavioral patterns of Muslims when religion is concerned.